Posted on 07/01/2010 5:58:54 PM PDT by Qbert
Thanks. I’m glad there are a few folks who appreciate my efforts to put things in perspective. I really, really don’t want anyone to suffer harm from this spill, and I want BP’s gonads run up the nearest flagpole as badly as anyone else. But circulating exaggerated scare stories helps nothing to the end of securing justice.
You stress that you are a chemist but ignore and minimize
toxicity, long-term potential genetic, biomembrane-
distruptive, and secondary metabolite endocrine, issues.
You claim to KNOW what is happening, but when FReepers
show you are wrong, thrice you try to blame them for
a suicide already reported to be directly secondary
to the BP oil spill and the shut off of activity in those
geographic and economic sectors.
Both show less about perspective, and more about bias, FRiend.
LOL. Do you honestly think anyone here would understand those issues in depth?? And I'm ignoring none of those. Testing in pretty much ALL of those areas has been done or is ongoing. The chemicals involved here are WIDELY used consumer products, and have been extensively tested.
Let's look at the compound you describe as "the most toxic" in the dispersants:
"2-Butoxyethanol is widely used as a solvent in surface coatings, such as spray lacquers, quick-dry lacquers, enamels, varnishes, varnish removers, and latex paint. 2-Butoxyethanol is also used as a coupling agent in metal and household cleaners; as an intermediate in butoxyethanol acetate production; and in herbicides, automotive brake fluids, printing inks, spot removers, cosmetics, nail polish remover and hair colorants."
A more exhaustive list can be found here:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/speciate/ehpa_speciate_browse.cfm?ptype=G&pollutant=310
"You claim to KNOW what is happening, but when FReepers show you are wrong, thrice you try to blame them for a suicide already reported to be directly secondary to the BP oil spill and the shut off of activity in those geographic and economic sectors.
I do know what is happening. I understand both the chemicals and the possible mechanisms of exposure. Please point out precisely where I have "been wrong". I can back up every point I've made. And scaring people TO DEATH is a very real possibility of these kinds of grossly exaggerated scare "articles".
"Both show less about perspective, and more about bias, FRiend."
Yeah, I'm biased all right. In favor of honest reportage of supportable facts.
And, how could you if the tests have not even been done, yet?
Depends on which kinds of tests. There are epidemiological tests, animal tests, and human tests. Some need informed consent, some don't. Some information is gained from inadvertent exposure.
" And those exposed did not have informed consent taken, did they?Does that matter to you?"
It is irrelevant to the question of toxicity.
"WW, second, you try to minimize the toxicity."
No, I try to point out the reality of the so-called toxicity in the face of gross exaggeration. ALL the ingredients in both Corexits have been widely used in consumer products for decades. I doubt that there is anyone in the USA who hasn't been exposed to one or more of them. And I quite seriously doubt that just mixing them together generates a magical new deadly species.
"But you ignore the story itself."
"The health department is tracking reports of oil exposure from people seeking treatment in emergency rooms or urgent care centers in Mobile and Baldwin Counties. As of the beginning of this week, 37 people had been tallied since the monitoring began May 14, Miller said. Of those, 22 had inhaled oil fumes or vapors; 11 had skin contact; three had swallowed the oil and one had both touched and inhaled it."
THIS is what you base things on??? Ye flippin' gods. Out of millions of people across the affected area, (or even in Mobile and Baldwin Counties), the only surprising thing is that there aren't MORE hysterical placebo events. Some people think they've been exposed, or actually have had some slight exposure, have read some of the scare stories, panic, and haul off to the emergency room. Actual link to any real safety hazard.....totally speculative.
Some people have even DIED from such hysterical reactions, due to induced heart attacks, strokes, or suicide.
"Finally, you claim to have supportable facts, but ignore those presented in posts such as 15, 17, 22, 36, 37 and 38, above."
Because there ARE no supportable facts in those posts, just speculations and suppositions, or wrong assumptions. 15) is trying to make the case against 2-butoxyethanol, which is not in the dispersant used. 17) makes the same error. 22) is irrelevant to the discussion. And 36) and 37) are identical (and incorrect). Nothing at the Nalco website in any way even CLAIMS that Corexit 9527 was used in spill treatment at all.
The closest the Nalco site has to such a statement is:
"Limited quantities of COREXIT 9527 may have been drawn from existing dispersant stockpiles from around the world."
BP, the Coast Guard, and the EPA all say that only Corexit 9500 was used. As they are the ones closest to the situation and have the best information, I think they are more likely to be correct.
"At the end of the day, it is not clear you fully understand the chemicals and their full range of bioeffect."
So let's hear YOUR qualifications to make judgments, genius boy. I suspect I understand them a lot better than you do. FYI, NOBODY understands the "full range of bio-effect" of anything. We can only make judgments on the best information we have at a given time.
" And those exposed did not have informed consent taken,
did they?Does that matter to you?"
WW: "It is irrelevant to the question of toxicity.""
Wrong. It is very relevant to forcing captive populations to eat
such materials released just to decrease governmental fines
by hiding the amount of oil.
It is also very relevant to any toxic material given without choice
which potentially can effect a human in so many ways.
It is also relevant to taking informed consent.
These are not tests. These are toxins. Children are exposed
who are not adults. And all had no choice in making a decision
based upon information given to them before the fact.
WW, how about you spend some time thinking this weekend
understanding both the role of the independence of people
who rightfully demand their right to informed consent
and consider that you might not know the entire scope
of potential bio-, membrane-, endocrine, gastrointestinal,
pulmonary, neuro-, renal and genetic toxicities and human pathologies
generated from the materials.
I'll ask again, where precisely is such "proven erroneous" given.
"What is most incredible is that you now claim there were substantive "epidemiological tests, animal tests, and human tests" for each of the ingredients in all of the materials released in the Gulf by BP. Frankly, that erodes your credibility."
Frankly, you need to learn to read. I made no such claim. I was basically asking you what sort of tests you thought were needed. I AM sure that epidemiological and animal tests HAVE been done for all of the ingredients contained in the dispersant used in the Gulf by BP. ALL consumer products for human use undergo such testing.
"you might not know the entire scope of potential bio-, membrane-, endocrine, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, neuro-, renal and genetic toxicities and human pathologies generated from the materials."
ROFL. I never claimed to know such. But I do have a reasonable idea of the overall meaning of toxicity and the regulatory chain of science behind it. You seem to think Corexit is as toxic as nerve gas or something similar. It is not. I've designed equipment to do air monitoring for many commonly used industrial chemicals, so I "do" understand the basis of things like LD50, TLV, TWA, and what they mean.
So I'll ask you again. What is YOUR expertise in the area of monitoring and regulation of chemical exposures.??
Or is all you know how to do is blindly Google up searches and post links to them???
I’ve read through a lot of your posts regarding this subject and you seem knowledgeable on the subject. I’m not sure how there can be such an extreme difference of opinion on the subject...I hear what you are saying, but there are contradicting reports.
I’d like your opinion on these news report. I’m concerned about those who are being exposed to such high levels for any length of time:
BP Oil Spill - Toxic Gases Spreading Inland Scientist Says Move Out (WWL, Channel 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q-msqPnkD4&feature=related
And on this...why would they be planning to evacuate if there is no harm in what they are doing?
The erroneous claims you made were rebutted above
with several URLs, which -despite your lie- are not
Google searches.
You understand neither human testing, nor the difference
between statistical or clinical significance, nor do
you respect that fact that people have the right to informed consent before being exposed to any toxic products.
Obviously WW’s comments are opposed by many, many
contradicting reports, such as posted above and ignored,
and no matter how many are shown to WW,
the issue is changed because there is no basis for his rants.
Apparently, WW learned what an “LD50” is and considers himself an expert in all oil-dispersant-health issues, including those never even tested as yet.
Be specific. I deny that you (or anybody else on this thread) has "rebutted" anything I have said. Certainly no URL you have posted has done so.
"You understand neither human testing, nor the difference between statistical or clinical significance, nor do you respect that fact that people have the right to informed consent before being exposed to any toxic products.
I'll lay a small wager that I understand toxicology and the factors related to it a lot better than you do. I'll ask again....what are YOUR credentials to talk about toxicology.
I started my career in Chemistry doing air monitoring for toxic chemicals (this was in the days before there "was" an EPA). I have followed the evolution of EPA, OSHA, and the rules and regs developed as they were being developed. In my career in the petrochemical industry, I developed both tests and instruments to monitor toxics of all sorts from hydrogen sulfide to vinyl chloride. And my current work involves developing instrumentation to detect biowarfare agents in the atmosphere in real time.
I think that gives me a "reasonable" understanding of air toxics.
Wonder Warthog:
"Be specific. I deny that you (or anybody else on this thread)
has "rebutted" anything I have said.
Certainly no URL you have posted has done so."
Specfic posts were listed above, and you falsely said
they linked to "Google searches".
"You understand neither human testing,
nor the difference between statistical or clinical significance,
nor do you respect that fact that people have the right to informed consent
before being exposed to any toxic products.
Wonder Warthog:
"I'll lay a small wager that I understand toxicology and the factors related to it
a lot better than you do.
...I think that gives me a "reasonable" understanding of air toxics."
bfd. You certainly have done, and continue to do,
many great things, but just not impressed for many reasons
including the following.
This is not about you, your credentials, your vast ego,
or your claims which were partially rebutted with urls you ignore,
and the fact that, to confuse, you just happen to try to change
the precise subject with each post.
And this is not just about "air toxics".
You have been deceitful about genetic, endocrinologic, renal,
and neurologic toxicities of these materials.
You have ignored that their metabolites are often not tested
(how could they be in a different species?) despite that they have
endocrinologic impact.
Most importantly, you ignore the fact that they have never
been tested in human utero despite your claim.
But they will now, because BP and Obama are here to change all that.
I don't care where and how you got the various links, I want you to show where ANY of your links disproves anything I have said. Your constant obfuscation proves to me that you cannot.
"You have been deceitful about genetic, endocrinologic, renal, and neurologic toxicities of these materials. You have ignored that their metabolites are often not tested (how could they be in a different species?) despite that they have endocrinologic impact."
Really??? Where would that be. I have spoken about NONE of those specific subjects, though I "do" understand what they are and how they work. Different chemicals get tested to different depths depending on relative demonstrated toxicity. Those that demonstrate high toxicity at low concentration levels are tested "in depth" in precisely those areas in order to determine the mechanism of toxicity. Other chemicals are not so tested because they show no toxicity in high-level testing. In order to have chemical safety, it is not necessary to test ALL chemicals in ALL ways. I have "ignored" nothing, just as you have proven nothing.
"Most importantly, you ignore the fact that they have never been tested in human utero despite your claim. But they will now, because BP and Obama are here to change all that."
I don't know of ANY chemical that has been tested "in human utero", because such human testing is not done. ANY data on mutagenicity and similar effects comes from epidemiological studies, which gather their data from workers in chemical plants (male and female) who are, in the course of their careers, exposed to a higher level than the "civilian" population. Those data, plus data gathered from multiple animal studies form the basis of ALL testing. And by virtue of their career choice(s) those humans tested HAVE "given informed consent".
And I'll ask again. What are YOUR qualifications to comment on metagenicity, genetic, endocrinologic, renal, and neurologic toxicities of those materials? Let's hear what YOU know about them. Again, your continuing refusal to do so indicates to me that you have no real in-depth knowledge of these subjects.
Put up or shut up.
Wonder Warthog: "I don't care where and how you got
the various links ... (rant)"
Any reader may look at the urls
in posts 15, 17, 22, 36, 37, 38, and 48 above
and evaluate for themselves
that you are arrogant and clueless.
""You have been deceitful about genetic, endocrinologic,
renal, and neurologic toxicities of these materials.
You have ignored that their metabolites are often not tested
(how could they be in a different species?)
despite that they have endocrinologic impact."
Wonder Warthog: "Really??? Where would that be. I have spoken about NONE of those specific subjects,
though I "do" understand what they are and how they work.
Different chemicals get tested to different depths depending on relative demonstrated toxicity.
Those that demonstrate high toxicity at low concentration levels
are tested "in depth" in precisely those areas in order to determine the mechanism of toxicity.
Other chemicals are not so tested because they show no toxicity in high-level testing.
In order to have chemical safety, it is not necessary to test ALL chemicals in ALL ways.
I have "ignored" nothing, just as you have proven nothing."
"In depth"? "different depths"? You apparently do not know
the difference between therapeutic ratio and LD50.
Nor the difference between pulmonic, hepatic and renal detoxification.
You apparently do not know or care about the
difference between brief and long term exposures.
You apparently do not know or care about the
difference between choice with informed consent and its absence.
Why have you glossed over what each FReeper posted with documentation?
""Most importantly, you ignore the fact that they have never been tested in human utero despite your claim. But they will now, because BP and Obama are here to change all that."
Wonder Warthog: "I don't know of ANY chemical that has been tested "in human utero",
because such human testing is not done.
ANY data on mutagenicity and similar effects comes from epidemiological studies,
which gather their data from workers in chemical plants (male and female)
who are, in the course of their careers, exposed to a higher level than the "civilian" population.
Those data, plus data gathered from multiple animal studies
form the basis of ALL testing. And by virtue of their career choice(s)
those humans tested HAVE "given informed consent"."
Fascinating at what you purport to be sufficient for a long term extensive exposure and impact study which now involves
every single resident in parts of (at least) four states.
You are aware that examining workers involves a small number
of people, and that the statistical significance of that and a few fish
might not hold for the number of people involving millions.
So where is that in your statement?
You are aware that standards for workers in high risk fields
(say involving chemical or radiation exposure) is necessarily
higher than for populations (and how about the children and infants)?
So where is that in your statement?
Wonder Warthog: "And I'll ask again.
What are YOUR qualifications to comment on metagenicity (sic),
genetic, endocrinologic, renal, and neurologic toxicities of those materials? "
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And it is not relevant anyway.
Note also how ironic this is.
Because this absence of long term testing is exactly
what this entire thread of the
BP-DNC-Obama-created disaster, about which you are making
light, is about.
Please point out any single link which disproves any single point I have made. Be specific. Your general "shotgun blast" proves nothing.
"You apparently do not know the difference between therapeutic ratio and LD50. Nor the difference between pulmonic, hepatic and renal detoxification."
Actually, I do. But I doubt seriously that "you" do.
"You apparently do not know or care about the difference between brief and long term exposures."
Indeed I do. And it is the difference between those types of exposures which is the problem with the general lists of symptoms that you refer to, as they make no distinction between those types of exposures, nor to the dosage that is necessary to cause those symptoms.
"You apparently do not know or care about the difference between choice with informed consent and its absence."
Having addressed this specifically, I don't see how you get to your conclusion.
"You are aware that examining workers involves a small number of people, and that the statistical significance of that and a few fish might not hold for the number of people involving millions. So where is that in your statement?"
Yes, I am indeed aware of that, which is why data development on such human studies involves many different companies and follows many different people for long periods of time. It is also why animal studies are usually done on more than one type of test animal. And it's not "in my statement" because I'm not trying to write an encyclopedic summary of what is involved in a toxicological study.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And it is not relevant anyway. Note also how ironic this is. Because this absence of long term testing is exactly what this entire thread of the BP-DNC-Obama-created disaster, about which you are making light, is about.
Your lack of knowledge of the stuff you are posting about is specifically the problem. Because the chemicals in the dispersants are widely used in consumer products, long-term testing HAS been done. It is required by law. WHERE do you think the data quoted in the MSDS sheets and other regulatory documents on various symptoms came from in the first place??? Did the folks at EPA, OSHA, and the CDC just pull those data out of their butts??
Wonder Warthog: "Please point out any single link which disproves any single point I have made. Be specific. Your general "shotgun blast" proves nothing."
Already pointed to many ... twice.
Posts 15, 17, 22, 36, 37, 38, and 48 above, for example.
It is cowardly on your part to not even have a go
at a few of the listed urls, with you discussing and rebutting
with real science instead of your handwaving and strawman arguments.
""You apparently do not know the difference between
therapeutic ratio and LD50.
Nor the difference between pulmonic, hepatic and renal detoxification.""
Wonder Warthog: "Actually, I do. But I doubt seriously that "you" do."
Sure you do. Whatever.
So far your inability to respond to any of the few physiologic
systems, and their pathologies, already discussed after evidence presented by several
FReepers above, indicates your posts are more sophomoric than knowledgeable.
""You apparently do not know or care about the
difference between brief and long term exposures.""
Wonder Warthog: "Indeed I do. And it is the difference
between those types of exposures which is the problem
with the general lists of symptoms that you refer to,
as they make no distinction between those types of
exposures, nor to the dosage that is necessary to
cause those symptoms.""
So what. Again you try to change the subject to a strawman issue.
The problem is that in THIS CASE people will be exposed for a long time.
You again do not care about the difference between brief and
long term exposures of the people exposed without their informed
consent being taken.
That you keep going back to the same misdirection
indicates something, agenda? Kluver-Bucy syndrome?
""You apparently do not know or care about the
difference between choice with informed consent and its absence.""
Wonder Warthog: "Having addressed this specifically,
I don't see how you get to your conclusion."
Anyone reading to this point is quite aware of the basis
of the conclusion, and that you did not address it, except
to show confusion on your part by interposing consent in
a test to consent in people exposed who are not in a test.
""You are aware that examining workers involves
a small number of people, and that the statistical significance
of that and a few fish might not hold for the number of
people involving millions. So where is that in your statement?""
Wonder Warthog: "Yes, I am indeed aware of that,
which is why data development on such human studies
involves many different companies and follows many
different people for long periods of time. It is also why
animal studies are usually done on more than one type
of test animal. And it's not "in my statement" because
I'm not trying to write an encyclopedic summary of
what is involved in a toxicological study."
Good. So you finally agree there may be (and are)
possible inadequate studies of some of the materials.
""The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And it is not relevant anyway. Note also how ironic this is.
Because this absence of long term testing is exactly what
this entire thread of the BP-DNC-Obama-created disaster,
about which you are making light, is about."
Wonder Warthog: "Your lack of knowledge of the stuff
you are posting about is specifically the problem. Because
the chemicals in the dispersants are widely used in consumer
products, long-term testing HAS been done. It is required by
law. WHERE do you think the data quoted in the MSDS sheets
and other regulatory documents on various symptoms came
from in the first place??? Did the folks at EPA, OSHA, and
the CDC just pull those data out of their butts?? "
Some of the chemicals are widely used. Not all.
For example, see Post #38 above re: 2-Butoxy Ethanol that you claim
was not there but were shown to be wrong above by another
FReeper.
And that is the rub.
I do 100% agree with what you said. Obama and his administration are hiding millions of things from us and would love nothing more than for red state/oil working and living southerners dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.